If Dennett’s book contains an answer to this question, I’d like to hear it right away before wading into the philosophical gook. If it doesn’t, case closed.
I think Dennett is more into showing that the naive view of consciousness is inconsistent and that “being conscious” is not a legit property of things.
I meant that perhaps consciousness cannot be consistently and meaningfully defined as a property of things, so as to enable us to say: a man is conscious, a rock is not.
What is consciousness, anyway? It comes to something when we need a whole book (Consciousness Explained) to tell us what a word means, instead of a simple definition. And even then we don’t agree. I certainly sympathize with those who’d prefer to abolish the whole idea of consciousness, instead.
I think Dennett is more into showing that the naive view of consciousness is inconsistent and that “being conscious” is not a legit property of things.
What does that mean?
I meant that perhaps consciousness cannot be consistently and meaningfully defined as a property of things, so as to enable us to say: a man is conscious, a rock is not.
What is consciousness, anyway? It comes to something when we need a whole book (Consciousness Explained) to tell us what a word means, instead of a simple definition. And even then we don’t agree. I certainly sympathize with those who’d prefer to abolish the whole idea of consciousness, instead.